Is it possible to include the actual spreadsheet for download.

At the top of this page there is a link to download the spreadsheet.

http://fullcontactpoker.com/wptstats/

duh missed it. thanks.

i do that alot on here. no wonder i suck at poker

Very interesting, not only does it allow you to compare results of the big name players but it gives you very concrete stats on just how hard it is to turn a profit for an aspiring player to travel the circuit. I would even say some of Daniel's estimates are low -20k includes travel,taxes,etc but human nature is to go out and buy something big when you have a breakthrough win.

Tournaments have always seemed like a waste of time to me, and I much prefer cash games but I do love the aspect of being able to "crunch the numbers"
I was most surprised by Greenstein and Sebok's results - I knew Joe had a few 7th place finishes but his results are stronger than I realized and
I only was aware of Barry's 2 titles and maybe one or two other final tables- 19 cashes is impressive. If you are a tournament player it just goes to show
you that guys like Carlos, Gus, and Antonio are successful because they know how to close the deal. Still think Daniel, Ivey and Scotty have the most impressive WPT resumes with 8 final tables 4 Ivey and Scotty.


I wish I could remember who ripped me for saying I would take Erick Lindgren over Phil Hellmuth, I would point them in the direction of this spreadsheet.

Ok, I don't think daniel thought this through. If you want to convince the WPT of something, email it to the WPT.

Making this public is a HORRIBLE idea for him. See all those people below the 10k mark that you see at every event because they got whatever backer to put them in or scraped together the cash? You just shamed some of them into not playing, made it way harder for them to get one off backing deals, and consequently dried up a ton of the dead money in these events.

Let whoever is stupid enough to buy pieces of john robert keep doing it blissfully unaware of their terrible investment. I think you just cost yourself a ton of equity.

You're reading too much into this from Daniel's point of view. He isn't trying to convince the WPT of anything.

Knowing Daniel I bet this started as him looking at the WPT stats and being curious about how he compares to others and once he started he decided to do a complete spreadsheet and once he did it he was going to share with everybody through his blog.

He is a stats geek and has been for as long as I've known him. You should see some of the things he'll do for our hockey pool.

I don't disagree that it might not be that wise to tap the glass about some players but that isn't the reason for him doing this.

I don't think he intended to tap the glass at all, I rarely think daniel has poor intentions. I think he more than likely thought "wow, this is really hilarious / awesome" (which it is) and wanted to show people who hilarious/awesome it is. For those of us who aren't playing the WPTs, it's really cool to see.

I can just see the people who are above that $16-20k line being very annoyed at this possibility of decreasing the dead money and consequently their equity. If i were in that position, that's how I'd feel at least.

You mean like the 5,800 people who played in the ME this year and didn't cash? Those kind of people?


If we were dealing with rational people who are self honest I think you would be more correct...but we are dealing with John Roberte et al.

I think the secret is safe.



An interesting stat spreadsheet, but he is of course assuming everyone paid full price to enter...no one sat or got staked in.

Sad to see the percentage of cahses to entrys on most of those known players.

I guess XXXXX was right when he told me that most tournament players are broke scum.

it's not really relevant to the main event as this is for WPT earnings. The average WPT $10k event this year is getting 300-400 people, with exceptions like the LAPC. If you chop out even 25-30 of the worst circuit regulars from those fields, it absolutely will have an effect on the prizepools and related equity of the remaining players.

I think there is one thing that is missing.

Arent a lot of profile players sponsored and dont have to pony up the $10K for most events. I know there isnt too many of them, but I would Daniel is in that category as well.

While Annie Puke might not have a good ROI, if she is getting Ultimate to sponsor her, she is still making money.

Also its hard to quantify how much a WPT final table appearance means in actual dollars.

Overall though good work by Daniel.

Very few players have deals that include paid tournament buyins, and they are usually limited. Ex: I imagine stars would rather spend their buyin dollars on getting pros to EPT events than WPT events since they directly benefit from bigger looking prizepools and high profile players at the tournaments they sponsor. On an EPTLive broadcast, I heard Barry G say something along the lines of "stars will pay my buyins to these EPT events and put me up but I have a lot of obligations if I take them up on it, like appearing on this broadcast".

I don't think there's any way to have a perfect analysis with only publicly available information, but for what it is, the spreadsheet is really pretty cool.

I thought about the whole "tapping the glass" thing, but the truth is, all this shows is past results and doesn't necessarily mean those losing now are -EV. Matt Glantz for example.

Daniel is scaring players away from WPT!

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-blogs/34-l...much-of-a-livin

"Before the tournament started I thought I was about %25 to play, but as I thought on it more and even read Danny’s blog on WPT stats, I came to the conclusion, that there is no reason to waste my time driving down there."

"Before the tournament started I thought I was about %25 to play, but as I thought on it more and even read Danny’s blog on WPT stats, I came to the conclusion, that there is no reason to waste my time driving down there."


Yeah but Lee claims to be a winning player- so it is not really relevant to the tapping the glass argument.